There is very little by way of arguments amongst Christendom about the necessity of such things as faith and repentance, yet that is not so when it comes to baptism. God is not the author of confusion, so it is that Satan seems to be very keen to muddy the waters about baptism. This should raise a red flag for us. Why would he do that? Satan is a believer in God, and he seems to not really care too much about people believing in God (although many don’t believe). Many more believe in God than don’t, but he has spread the lie that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. There is only one verse in the Bible that mentions faith only (Jas. 2:24), and it says that it cannot save! Most will not argue about the importance of repentance, but when it comes to baptism a whole range of views will be defended. I would suggest that if Satan confuses the understanding of baptism, then it must be something extremely vital.
Part of the issue centres around the word itself. Where did the word baptism come from? It is an Anglisized Greek word. It is not a translation. There are exceptions like McCord’s translation which translates baptizo as immersion, but most versions have used the word baptism as a standard rendition of the Greek word baptizo. The story is that when the early versions of the English New Testament were being produced, translators were concerned that if they translated the Greek word (which would be as immersion) , this would create havoc amongst the believers, because by then sprinkling was in vogue. Whilst immersion was the regular practice in the early church, after a couple of centuries it was deemed expedient to sprinkle those in sick beds, and from that precedent it was adopted in cold countries and so on. The creation of another English word Baptism was adopted to circumvent this problem, and it has remained in vogue ever since.
The problem with all this is that if the Lord specifies immersion, who has the authority to change it? There is another word for sprinkling, and yet another word for pouring, and they define different actions. Note Lev. 14:14,16. And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. And the priest shall dip right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. In the Greek version of the Old testament, “pour” is cheo, “sprinkle” is rhantizo, while “dip” is bapto. And so it is that Greek lexicons will define “baptizo” and to plunge, dip, or immerse. Some make mention that lexicons also list secondary meanings, which can be used to defend some strange positions. In relation to this subject, let us take Mark 16:16 as an example. It says He who believes and is baptised shall be saved. Now some lexicons list to have an opinion as a secondary meaning for “believe”. Some list sprinkle as a secondary meaning for “baptise”, and pickled as a secondary meaning for “saved”. So then, Mark 16:16 becomes, He who has an opinion and is sprinkled will be pickled! This will not do. Where do secondary meanings come from? These are simply gleaned from sparse references in ancient writings, but one has to make the assumption the writer was using the word correctly. There is no need to play games with meanings of baptism, for with no knowledge of Greek one can readily discern what is intended by that word.
Note John 3:23. This tells why John the Immerser chose a particular spot on the Jordan to baptise – because there was much water there. Now, isn’t that instructive. Does sprinkling require much water, or does immersion? Again in Acts 8 when Philip was teaching the Ethiopian in the chariot, he requested to be baptised. So the chariot was stopped (v.38), and both Philip and the Ethiopian went down into the water where Philip baptised him. V. 39 records that they came up out of the water. This too is illustrative of the design of baptism. Bear in mind the Ethiopian was on a long journey and doubtless would have had enough drinking water in his company for Philip to sprinkle him. One man, desirous to justify sprinkling for baptism, said that the Ethiopian produced a water bottle for Philip to sprinkle him, but it is hard to imagine both Philip and the Ethiopian going down into the bottle!
Not only do the historical narratives define immersion as the original mode, so do the ‘theological’ texts. Take, for instance, Rom. 6:3-6. V. 4 says we are buried with Him by baptism into death: V5 says we have been planted together in the likeness of his death. What action relates to burial? What action relates to planting? A denominational preacher told his son to bury the family dog which had just died. A few days later the father could smell this awful stench which he followed to find the dead dog’s body rotting under a few stones and some loose dirt up the back of the yard. He remonstrated with his son, accusing him of not doing what he was told. To this the boy replied, “Well I buried Fido just like you ‘bury’ people with Christ when you sprinkle them with water down at the church building.” Ouch!
Granted baptism is immersion, is it really that important? Note Mark. 16:16 which says He who believes and is baptised will be saved. “Belief” and “baptism” are joined by the simple conjunction “and”, which joins things of equal value. Note that belief and baptism both come before salvation. It does not say, as some would unconsciously render it He who is sprinkled and saved will one day believe. (This would be those who practice infant sprinkling (eg. Anglicans) which is not found in Scripture). Others render it He who believes and is saved will be baptised. (This would be those who believe in salvation by faith alone (eg. Baptists) and practice baptism as a way for people to be added to their church. This would mean it is easier to go to Heaven than to get in the Baptist church!) Yet others render it, He who is saved will believe and be baptised. (This would be those who believe in Calvinistic predestination which says the chosen ones are powerless to resist the gospel). Why don’t we just leave it as it is. A useful exercise to try and rid ourselves of preconceptions and bias and the desire to defend a position, is to swap some non-vital conditions into a sentence of the same construction. So, if we had a sentence He who stands on his head and sings a song will receive a million dollars, tax free would have us on our heads and singing in no time! We would not be quibbling about the need for singing as a pre-condition for the money.
Now the same considerations need to made with respect to Acts 2:38, which is Peter’s directive to the people on Pentecost who asked “What shall we do?”. He said, Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins….. Note, again, that repentance and baptism are both listed as imperatives to be obeyed in order to be saved (salvation and remission of sins are the same – Luke 1:77). He did not say, repent and be saved and later on you can be baptised. Again we see that baptism is essential to salvation. It is not the only condition, but it is one that is so often dispensed with. Peter is quite plain and bold in 1 Pet. 3:20,21 where he says, the like figure (anti-type) whereunto even baptism does also now save us. What could be plainer? In V. 20 he speaks of the salvation of Noah’s family by water as a type of New Testament baptism. It is true that Noah’s family were saved from the water, but that is not his point here. The water separated that godly family from a world that had become so overpoweringly wicked they were the only faithful left. Similarly it would be rather pointless to say that baptism is done quickly to save us from water (drowning). Rather water separates us from our sinful past, even as the baptism of the Israelites into Moses (1 Cor. 10:1,2) separated them from the house of bondage which was Egypt. (to be continued)